8 N.Y.3d 449 (2007)

The admissibility of expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, after considering the specific facts of the case.

Summary

This case addresses the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification. The Court of Appeals held that such testimony is not per se inadmissible, and the decision to admit it rests within the trial court’s discretion. The trial court must weigh factors like the centrality of the identification issue and the presence of corroborating evidence. In Legrand, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the expert testimony, given the circumstances of the case, including corroborating evidence beyond the eyewitness identification.

Facts

Michael Perani’s car was stolen at gunpoint in a well-lit area. He was only a few feet from the defendant during the robbery. Two months later, defendant was arrested driving Perani’s stolen vehicle. More than six months after the arrest, Perani identified the defendant in a photographic array and later in a lineup.

Procedural History

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree. Before trial, the hearing court summarily denied defendant’s motion to introduce expert testimony on eyewitness identification reliability. At trial, the trial court denied a renewed request. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to introduce expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification.
2. Whether the photographic array presented to the victim was unduly suggestive.

Holding

1. No, because given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
2. No, because subtle differences in the photographs were not “sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification”.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the admissibility and limits of expert testimony are primarily within the trial court’s discretion. It is up to the trial court to decide when jurors can draw conclusions based on their own experience versus when they would benefit from expert knowledge. The court recognized that while jurors may have personal experience with factors affecting eyewitness reliability, psychological studies on identification accuracy are not within the ken of the typical juror. The court acknowledged that the hearing court failed to exercise its discretion in summarily rejecting the motion. However, the trial court did consider the renewed request, weighing it against the centrality of the identification and the existence of corroborating evidence (the defendant being arrested in the stolen car). This corroborating evidence justified the denial of the expert testimony. The Court also found that the photo array was not unduly suggestive.